The meaning of Structuralism: a very short reply to Krugman

So the K-man explains what's the meaning of structural variables (structural confusion indeed). In his words: "Normally, what we mean by 'structural' — usually as opposed to 'cyclical' — is 'something that can’t be cured with higher demand'." He complements this definition with a comment: "there used to be a Latin American school of thought which saw inflation as structural, but I don’t think it ever made much sense."

So first the definition. Yes, structural is the antipode of cyclical (well duh), but it is by no means something that cannot be affected (cured if you think of unemployment as a disease) by demand. The only reason to think that the trend cannot be affected by demand is because Krugman believes (based on faith, since logic and evidence are against it) on the Natural Rate. Output is supply constrained in the long run, in his view. Actually, you can bring the average rate of unemployment (the trend or structural one, not the fluctuations) down by expanding demand. During the Golden Age of capitalism, average (structural) unemployment was lower, since there was a macroeconomic regime in place that allowed for consistent demand pressure and higher rates of growth. It involved capital controls and on average low rates of interest, high government spending in defense and infrastructure (in the case of the US), and increases in wages with productivity, so workers could expand consumption.

By the way, his lack of appreciation for Structural theories of inflation is also based on this obsession with the Natural Rate. For him all inflation is caused by excess demand (it turns out that Krugman is a Monetarist). Latin American structuralists pointed out that the changes in the structure of production created cost push causes for inflation. Logic and evidence suggest that they were right. By the way, same reason you shouldn't, as Krugman isn't, afraid about inflation in the US right now. Not close to full employment, and bargaining power of labor class at all time low, with no wage cost pressures. For a slightly longer discussion see this entry on the meaning of structuralist macroeconomics, and this one on the evolution of Latin American Structuralism which is still around (yep, the news of our demise are greatly exaggerated).

PS: I believe that you cannot understand inflation unless you have some structuralist view of it. For more go here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So besides the coup in Brazil (which was all but confirmed by the last revelations, if you had any doubts), and the electoral victory of Macri in Argentina, the crisis in Venezuela is reaching a critical level, and it would not be surprising if the Maduro administration is recalled, even though right now the referendum is not scheduled yet.

The economy in Venezuela has collapsed (GDP has fallen by about 14% or so in the last two years), inflation has accelerated (to three digit levels; 450% or so according to the IMF), there are shortages of essential goods, recurrent energy blackouts, and all of these aggravated by persistent violence. Contrary to what the press suggests, these events are not new or specific to left of center governments. Similar events occurred in the late 1980s, in the infamous Caracazo, when the fall in oil prices caused an external crisis, inflation, and food shortages, which eventually, after the announcement of a neoliberal economic package that included the i…

So, a few days ago, someone (my bad, can't remember who did it) posted on FB a piece (in Portuguese and behind a wall; but this post is mostly about the role of historical comparisons really, so you can skip the piece altogether) on the Brazilian National Development Bank (Portuguese acronym is BNDES, btw) and how it lend more than the US government with the Marshall Plan. The guy did a back of the envelope calculation (I did check and bringing the US$ 13 billion to present value, with the GDP deflator would be about 106 billion, roughly what he calculated) and concluded that the BNDES lending, which was higher, was very ineffective. Hm. Where to start?

Sure one can assume that the important thing is just to calculate how much money was lent in current values and one gets a reasonable picture of the impact. However, it should be clear that the US was lending dollars, and access to imports that were vital for the survival of Europe. Harder to put a dollar figure on that. But a bet…